TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Darian Tensley

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darian TENSLEY, A.K.A. Drac, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Tensley, 270 F. App'x 758 (11th Cir. 2008)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 18, 2008
Docket
No. 07-15649
Judges
Birch, Dubina, Black
Citations
270 F. App'x 758
Status
Unpublished
Summary
Non-Argument Calendar.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Darían Tensley appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c) motion to modify his sentence, based on the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, which lowered the base offense level for crimes involving cocaine base.

We review de novo a district court’s finding that it did not have the authority to modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

United States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir.2002). Amendment 706, effective November 1, 2007, reduced the base offense level for offenses involving at least 50, but less than 150, grams of cocaine base from 32 to 30.

See U.S.S.G.App. C, Amend. 706;

compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4) (2006), mth U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(5) (2007). Section 3582(c)(2) states a court may modify a term of imprisonment, based on a Guidelines range that is subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, if the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements from the Sentencing Commission, and it does not limit the time period when a court may make such a modification.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). A § 3582(c)(2) reduction is not authorized unless the amendment is listed in ■§ lB1.10(c). U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a). Amendment 706 was listed in § lB1.10(c) effective on March 3, 2008.

The district court did not err in denying the motion because Tensley prematurely filed it on November 8, 2007. Although the amendment is retroactive, it did not become retroactive until March 3, 2008. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2008: 120082026peak 2008 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Moore541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Moore541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2002) 148

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list